Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA at CES


Recommended Posts

I finally listened to the sample form 2L 050: Britten's simple symphony. The MQA version sounded much worse via Audirvana+ than the 24/96. Miska's analysis explains why. Bob Stuart stated many times that MQA will sound better than CD even without a MQA decoding DAC. Is there something missing (like a software to unfold that MQA file to allow something like 16/44.1 or 24/44.1 to be used by any non certified DAC without added noise) or is it just the next emperor's new clothing?

Link to comment
I finally listened to the sample form 2L 050: Britten's simple symphony. The MQA version sounded much worse via Audirvana+ than the 24/96. Miska's analysis explains why. Bob Stuart stated many times that MQA will sound better than CD even without a MQA decoding DAC. Is there something missing (like a software to unfold that MQA file to allow something like 16/44.1 or 24/44.1 to be used by any non certified DAC without added noise) or is it just the next emperor's new clothing?

 

You would have to ask him whether the assumption behind this and other statements (about MQA encoded files to a non-MQA DAC) is that the end user will have some sort of software decoder in front of it. On the surface, I and many (well, lets be honest, most) others interpreted all this Meridian marketing speak to mean that you would NOT need a software decoder for his statement to be true. Perhaps they did not do enough testing on their end and they thought it to be true at one point and now are not so sure (or even know now what Miska and you are discovering), and this has lead to their behavior at CES?

 

Fact is, we will probably never know what he was thinking. I believe they will have to roll out a software solution to make the promise of MQA work in streaming, etc. so it will be sooner rather than later when we see this...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
Should not that read "to a non-MQA DAC or software decoder"?

 

Yes, that's a key piece of the puzzle, and to my knowledge, no one on CA has used an MQA software decoder on the MQA files available now.

 

I get Miska's "closed format" objections, and I can see the impact that widespread adoption of MQA could have on him and small developers like him (and their customers in turn). However, I think that until it becomes clear what the software decoder can and can't do and in what form(s) it will be available, there's not much point in setting one's hair on fire.

 

Note that Roon and Tidal have both stated they're going to provide software decoding capability. As a Roon (and HQP) customer, I have a hard time believing Roon would buy in to a "solution" that yields a net reduction in quality. And contrary to what's been implied upthread, Roon is a separate company from Meridian and MQA. (The top-tier guys at Roon all worked at Meridian for a while as a consequence of Meridian's purchase of Sooloos — they were the original developers of Solos — but they left Meridian to start Roon.)

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment
Not sure if I understand your question, and DSD is not part of MQA.

 

The coded MQA can either be 16 or 24 bit, (and 32 also seems as an option), these can then have either 44.1 or 48 before decompressing.

 

Unless you are told up front what resolution the original master was, those possible 6 combinations can unpacked to n combinations where n is one of these numbers: 1,2,4,8. (Multiplied with either 44.1 or 48). Depending of the master of cause.

 

To bring size into this may confuses more, as a file can have any size.

 

There can only exist one MQA originated from the master recording. But the record company seems to be allowed to decide how to deliver in either 24 or 16 bit. if the original was 16, so in theory you could generate more than one MQA file. (My understanding).

 

When it comes to decode and what is allowed, the communication from MQA is non existing at the moment to other companies.

 

A lower sampling frequenzy out to the DAC would mean less size, but then again I think size do not matter in this discussion.

 

Did I in some way answer your question ?

 

Yes, somewhat. I only brought up DSD because currently you can get music files at different resolutions. I guess a follow up question, more of a broad question that probably can't be answered yet: will the highest resolution of a file be part of the deal or will the resolution be a mystery. I can't imagine it would be a mystery but it gets me wondering if MQA will be labeled such as "MQA 96", "MQA 192", "MQA 384", etc.

Jim

Link to comment
" techno-gibberish such as "Any format or codec based on PCM can't be better than PCM. We start testing PCM again?" seen here to discredit the entire project before anyone has listened to any benefit, or not, to music reproduction.

Thank you, but Meridian discredit himself as we seen. Someone listened, and Meridian claims are busted...

Sorry, english is not my native language.

Fools and fanatics are always certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.

Link to comment
Additionally, why fuck would MQA fuck over Auralic? They knowingly did. My Conspiracy theory is that there really is no MQA chip this can all be done with firmware which is why Auralic was all set.

 

This is completely unsubstantiated. It's based on a Facebook post that was taken down by Auralic and replaced with a much more temperate post that, among other things, deprecates the post that was "disappeared."

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment
Yes, that's a key piece of the puzzle, and to my knowledge, no one on CA has used an MQA software decoder on the MQA files available now.

 

I get Miska's "closed format" objections, and I can see the impact that widespread adoption of MQA could have on him and small developers like him (and their customers in turn). However, I think that until it becomes clear what the software decoder can and can't do and in what form(s) it will be available, there's not much point in setting one's hair on fire.

 

Note that Roon and Tidal have both stated they're going to provide software decoding capability. As a Roon (and HQP) customer, I have a hard time believing Roon would buy in to a "solution" that yields a net reduction in quality. And contrary to what's been implied upthread, Roon is a separate company from Meridian and MQA. (The top-tier guys at Roon all worked at Meridian for a while as a consequence of Meridian's purchase of Sooloos — they were the original developers of Solos — but they left Meridian to start Roon.)

 

--David

 

My view as well.

Link to comment
This is completely unsubstantiated. It's based on a Facebook post that was taken down by Auralic and replaced with a much more temperate post that, among other things, deprecates the post that was "disappeared."

 

--David

 

I bet the truth is in an email on Hillary's server... (applause all around and thank you, thank you, thank you very much)

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

This whole MQA thing is an abortion. Why put AURALIC through the ringer. This was no surprise that Auralic was leading this charge and was quite embarrassed at the CES 2016 show caught with their pants down. AURALIC can just update their Aries streamer with a new product with the MQA chip if need be. No?

Link to comment
Right. Or to do away with the double negative, you don't want to buy MQA because your certain your filters and upsampling have to be better than theirs even if theirs are specific to the original A-D environment ? Or is it a moral/political argument about black box authentication?? Just trying to understand what seem to be some a priori assumptions which aren't making sense to me.

I think Miska is annoyed by claims that the undecoded file is equivalent to 44/16 vs his analysis which shows it is not, it's worse.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment
None: You then mean as the present situation ?

Or are you also saying the decoded MQA must use an USB interface. Always.

Or that even if a dac chip was MQA it could not communicate over spdif.

 

No, I meant that there are currently no DAC chips or S/PDIF receivers out on the market that would have MQA decoder. The current solutions they seem to offer are firmware/software.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
I think Miska is annoyed by claims that the undecoded file is equivalent to 44/16 vs his analysis which shows it is not, it's worse.

 

Nobody has to download MQA files and if the primary delivery is via software decoded streaming who gets the non decoded FLAC files forced down their throats?

Link to comment

People, you should at least view the first couple of slides referenced earlier: http://icms.org.uk/downloads/BtG/Dragotti.pdf

It seems to bridge somewhat the consumer D/A world with some of the new developments in compressed sensing.

If it does what is implied by this, then, at least for new recordings and if not compared to DSD or 768/24, it can really be beneficial. So if you get to that 96/24 from a much-better digital or analog original, you may really feel the difference, as the newly-found E/B-spline basis used may be able to retain timing data much better than standard. It loses in raw dynamic range but wins in timing precision.

 

Moreover, this novel sampling is not the patented part, as it was developed in the open by researchers, so this technique can be used by any software, as long as there's a DAC to play it back. This means that, unless MQA walls off access to the decoding of this sampling technique, you will be able to resample any source using the novel technique and play back on the new DAC.

 

Pitchforks are correct when talking about the restrictions of DRM and the shenanigans with legacy playback, data hiding in dither and hierarchical fidelity level shenanigans.

But the novel sampling part is not patented, is based on solid foundations of compressed sensing (though CS started with random bases), has been developed openly and can be easily tested today.

Link to comment
And contrary to what's been implied upthread, Roon is a separate company from Meridian and MQA. (The top-tier guys at Roon all worked at Meridian for a while as a consequence of Meridian's purchase of Sooloos — they were the original developers of Solos — but they left Meridian to start Roon.)

 

--David

By hiving off, I mean separated from Meridian, perhaps better described as hiving off the idea. I've no idea what the various interests are in that company. It was going to be Sooloos 2 and was shown quietly at CES 2015, thought to be "awesome" but spun off at the last minute.

Link to comment
In the end, until we can really test MQA files played on MQA enabled DACs in our own home versus our current favorite formats and equipment, I think most of the posts here say more about us, and our hostility toward new technology, than it does about Meridian. For a crowd that is supposed to represent the leading edge of technology in the audio industry we (or at least a lot of us) seem amazingly hostile to new thinking or approaches.

 

I rather stick to technical aspects, since I'm a technical guy. But I'm tempted to explain my personal view on the matter.

 

It is not about technology, it is about media and infrastructure.

 

Internet was successful because you can access it using technology from different vendors, and different vendors can provide content and services on it. Microsoft and some others tried to create their own closed competitors for internet in the early days.

 

What if GE would announce that electricity coming from your wall socket is to be replaced with something that can be used only with GE licensed and approved devices? Or that non-approved devices would only get 5V/1A while approved devices can use full power?

 

Media content is sensitive subject, especially if you consider longevity of the tools available for accessing it, and the availability of different ways to consume the content. We have Vorbis and FLAC as open and free audio codecs (from Xiph), VP9 as open and free video codec (form Google), and JPEG and PNG images. Now, luckily and finally open and free HTML5 video and audio is completely replacing Adobe Flash for good. Now you can choose whether you watch it with built-in functionality of Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Opera or IE. Content doesn't define the tool you use to deal with it.

 

MQA is quite a bit like SACD, which could be produced only at designated Sony factories, which you couldn't rip and on a non-licensed/approved device you could only access the CD quality layer. DVD-A with the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) was very much similar, mandatory for DVD-A and HD DVD players and you cannot rip it (unlike PCM if publisher chose to use it instead).

 

I still need to keep SACD player around to be able to listen to DSD from my SACD discs (I could actually build a ripping device myself that would take the data straight from DAC chip pins, but that's another matter). I don't want to purchase the same content second time. Luckily I have no such problem with CD's which I have ripped losslessly and can now listen as FLACs. I have also bunch of HD DVD discs, but where would I find HD DVD player anymore to play those? I only have HD DVD drive for the old Xbox360 game console. When that breaks, the HD DVD discs are useless.

 

What if one day MQA goes out of fashion and new DACs don't include the decoder anymore? You are left with files that you cannot use to full extent...

 

Streaming services are little bit less concern, because you may not worry as much about how to access the content and what you need to use in order to access the content. Or you may...

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
Nobody has to download MQA files and if the primary delivery is via software decoded streaming who gets the non decoded FLAC files forced down their throats?

Noone, agreed. I am ALL for TIDAL using MQA and decoding 48/24 streams into higher res PCM.

 

When it comes to files, the story is different. It has been MQA's statement all along that undecoded files will represent at least as good a resolution as redbook. Miska's analysis shows this not to be the case. This is yet one more botched claim on the part of Meridian.

 

I auditioned MQA at Meridian NYC sometime in March 2015 if I recall correctly. The files they demo sounded markedly better in MQA'd version. One particular file was a 24/192 followed by it's MQA'd version off of the same file. Much better.

 

So I have to say I do like what MQA does in terms of "fixing ADC/recording chain deficiencies". But I am fairly uncomfortable with both Miska's findings plus the about face played on Auralic.

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment

That is why MQA is mainly directed as a streaming and later on satellite radio medium. I am not taking sides here. I agree that the last thing audio and music industry need is another format. MQA is not a new format. It is a new way of delivery of existing pcm formats in an easy and comprehensible for the large public way. Average people don't give a damn about dsd or dxd, they don't even know what It is and will never care. They might appreciate listening to Hi Res but are reluctant to go through the fuss and the expense to get It.

 

I think that MQA brand name's audible resemblance to MP3 is no accident. MQA is a realistic effort to deliver to ordinary people high quality audio they can immediately appreciate and relate to without having to spend more than a smartphone or a bluetooth speaker. It is a new way to deliver to them studio quality music to their cars without the need of hi end dacs with aerospace grade components. That is why I think the average audiophile may not be so impressed since modern high quality digital already makes up for most of the loss MQA attempts to recreate easily and realisticly cheaply but at a cost..

 

MQA is like Apple's Mpeg4 which silently took over cable and satellite HD TV streaming. That was It's initial purpose and not ownership of movies or ripping blurays to this format or taking hd home video and it changed the way we watch TV AND i do not thin that it is aroyaltie free format but it was easy to understand and use and did not require a high cost for the average home user to implement. As we all know because of It's potential to deliver high quality audio video to the masses mpeg4 is now the world standard of video streaming.

 

A format which delivers quality as well as quantity through cheap streaming of free internet and digital radio an a cost negligible to the average user which is easy to recondise, show off and use, has the potential to really change the way people listen to or appreciate music. It is not about audiophiles and monstrous sized Quad Dsd or Half a kilo slabs of vinyl holy grails. But promises to deliver what they can in a way accessible to the average man and I think this also concerns not only audiophiles but true music lovers too..

Link to comment
Noone, agreed. I am ALL for TIDAL using MQA and decoding 48/24 streams into higher res PCM.

 

When it comes to files, the story is different. It has been MQA's statement all along that undecoded files will represent at least as good a resolution as redbook. Miska's analysis shows this not to be the case. This is yet one more botched claim on the part of Meridian.

 

I auditioned MQA at Meridian NYC sometime in March 2015 if I recall correctly. The files they demo sounded markedly better in MQA'd version. One particular file was a 24/192 followed by it's MQA'd version off of the same file. Much better.

 

So I have to say I do like what MQA does in terms of "fixing ADC/recording chain deficiencies". But I am fairly uncomfortable with both Miska's findings plus the about face played on Auralic.

 

Agreed the undecoded files look problematic. Even if MQA doesn't address this I just don't think that will matter to a lot of people. Assuming that Bob Stuart doesn't achieve world domination and does away with all non-MQA material.

Link to comment
I rather stick to technical aspects, since I'm a technical guy. But I'm tempted to explain my personal view on the matter.

 

It is not about technology, it is about media and infrastructure.

 

Internet was successful because you can access it using technology from different vendors, and different vendors can provide content and services on it. Microsoft and some others tried to create their own closed competitors for internet in the early days.

 

What if GE would announce that electricity coming from your wall socket is to be replaced with something that can be used only with GE licensed and approved devices? Or that non-approved devices would only get 5V/1A while approved devices can use full power?

 

Media content is sensitive subject, especially if you consider longevity of the tools available for accessing it, and the availability of different ways to consume the content. We have Vorbis and FLAC as open and free audio codecs (from Xiph), VP9 as open and free video codec (form Google), and JPEG and PNG images. Now, luckily and finally open and free HTML5 video and audio is completely replacing Adobe Flash for good. Now you can choose whether you watch it with built-in functionality of Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Opera or IE. Content doesn't define the tool you use to deal with it.

 

MQA is quite a bit like SACD, which could be produced only at designated Sony factories, which you couldn't rip and on a non-licensed/approved device you could only access the CD quality layer. DVD-A with the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) was very much similar, mandatory for DVD-A and HD DVD players and you cannot rip it (unlike PCM if publisher chose to use it instead).

 

I still need to keep SACD player around to be able to listen to DSD from my SACD discs (I could actually build a ripping device myself that would take the data straight from DAC chip pins, but that's another matter). I don't want to purchase the same content second time. Luckily I have no such problem with CD's which I have ripped losslessly and can now listen as FLACs. I have also bunch of HD DVD discs, but where would I find HD DVD player anymore to play those? I only have HD DVD drive for the old Xbox360 game console. When that breaks, the HD DVD discs are useless.

 

What if one day MQA goes out of fashion and new DACs don't include the decoder anymore? You are left with files that you cannot use to full extent...

 

Streaming services are little bit less concern, because you may not worry as much about how to access the content and what you need to use in order to access the content. Or you may...

 

I quoted it again because it needs careful attention, but I am afraid this aspect of computers, formats, and even the fact that MQA is legal entity in a way that other things in peoples audio chain is a bit obscure to people. Then you have folks that are perfectly "ok" with it even when they truly understand the implications.

 

This is why with MQA, or something like it, is what the future of audio looks like:

 

the future.jpg

the future.jpg

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
That is why MQA is mainly directed as a streaming and later on satellite radio medium. I am not taking sides here. I agree that the last thing audio and music industry need is another format. MQA is not a new format. It is a new way of delivery of existing pcm formats in an easy and comprehensible for the large public way. Average people don't give a damn about dsd or dxd, they don't even know what It is and will never care. They might appreciate listening to Hi Res but are reluctant to go through the fuss and the expense to get It.

 

I think that MQA brand name's audible resemblance to MP3 is no accident. MQA is a realistic effort to deliver to ordinary people high quality audio they can immediately appreciate and relate to without having to spend more than a smartphone or a bluetooth speaker. It is a new way to deliver to them studio quality music to their cars without the need of hi end dacs with aerospace grade components. That is why I think the average audiophile may not be so impressed since modern high quality digital already makes up for most of the loss MQA attempts to recreate easily and realistically cheaply but at a cost..

 

MQA is like Apple's Mpeg4 which silently took over cable and satellite HD TV streaming. That was It's initial purpose and not ownership of movies or ripping blurays to this format or taking hd home video and it changed the way we watch TV AND i do not thin that it is aroyaltie free format but it was easy to understand and use and did not require a high cost for the average home user to implement. As we all know because of It's potential to deliver high quality audio video to the masses mpeg4 is now the world standard of video streaming.

 

A format which delivers quality as well as quantity through cheap streaming of free internet and digital radio an a cost negligible to the average user which is easy to recondise, show off and use, has the potential to really change the way people listen to or appreciate music. It is not about audiophiles and monstrous sized Quad Dsd or Half a kilo slabs of vinyl holy grails. But promises to deliver what they can in a way accessible to the average man and I think this also concerns not only audiophiles but true music lovers too..

 

You make a salient analysis. I would niggle: MQA is a "new" format, even one that is locked behind IP and all that means legally for everyone in the industry and of course consumers, even if it is simply a reworking of an "old" format (and this gets into one of the problem areas of software patents). It is of course with streaming to the "average man" that will make or break ANY new format probably, open or closed, as that is where the $money$ is to the industry.

 

I would add and say to those who upstream suggested an open (non proprietary - perhaps one with a GNU license) competitor to MQA will be along soon enough, I don't doubt it but I wonder how it will solve the industries desire to manage your content (DRM)? With a trivial tweak (or as is, depending on definitions) MQA accomplishes this already.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here.

 

I posted the following to Miska's blog on MQA:

 

I think all your seeing here is noise shaped dither. I took some of the 2L files that are non-MQA, and changed them to 16 bit from the original 24 bit. You get nearly the same band of low level noise in the upper frequencies, and that is due to the noise shaped dithering.

 

I seem to recall one of the patents on MQA talking about hiding those lower bits of HF info in pseudo-random shaped noise. Apparently it functions as dither yet with MQA decoding they can recover the low level HF bits too. You can see in the block diagram they are subtracting the lower bits of the HF signal from the LF signal using bits 14,15, and 16. That would serve the function of dither. 3 bits is more than often used, but it being only at the high frequencies wouldn't really mean the files have been reduced to 12 or 13 bit resolution.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
By hiving off, I mean separated from Meridian, perhaps better described as hiving off the idea. I've no idea what the various interests are in that company. It was going to be Sooloos 2 and was shown quietly at CES 2015, thought to be "awesome" but spun off at the last minute.

 

Sooloos still belongs to Meridian. I don't know what Meridian is doing with it. Roon has nothing to do with Sooloos. (The auto-correct really wants "Sooloos" to be "Solos".) The Roon idea is kind of like Sooloos, except Roon is software only (and way better :)).

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...